State v. Peterson, 293 P.3d 730

Peterson pled no contest to attempted sexual exploitation of a child; the State amended to a single count in exchange for the plea and promised to remain silent at sentencing unless misstatements of fact occurred.
At the first sentencing hearing, the district court found Peterson to be a persistent sex offender, doubling the presumptive sentence under Kansas law.
Clinical psychologist Barnett testified he viewed Peterson as a good candidate for probation, based on information Peterson provided; Barnett’s report omitted several critical facts unknown to him.
During cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned Barnett about Peterson’s honesty and prior offenses, and Barnett acknowledged undisclosed allegations and the earlier conviction.
The prosecutor argued Peterson was dishonest, including a statement that Peterson could not or would not address his looking at child pornography, which the defense argued violated the plea agreement to remain silent.
The Court of Appeals upheld the State’s right to speak at sentencing; the Supreme Court granted review to assess whether the State breached the plea agreement by speaking.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the State breach the plea agreement by speaking at sentencing?	Peterson; the State violated its silent-at-sentencing promise by making remarks.	Peterson; the State exceeded its promise and undermined the agreement.	Yes; the State breached the plea agreement by not remaining silent.
What remedy is appropriate for the State's breach?	Peterson seeks resentencing or specific performance of the plea terms.	Peterson desires relief consistent with the breach, including resentencing before a different judge.	Vacate sentence and remand for resentencing before a different judge.
Should the court address Peterson's other constitutional challenges given the breach?	Peterson raised Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment challenges related to aggravating factors and post-release supervision.	State argues issues are moot or not preserved due to breach.	Not reached/considered because remand resolves the core breach issue.

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (plea agreement promises must be fulfilled; breach requires remedy)
Woodward, 288 Kan. 297 (2009) (prosecutor may support a negotiated sentence but cannot undermine it)
State v. Antrim, 294 Kan. 632 (2012) (unlimited review of plea-bargain breach questions)
United States v. Block, 660 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1981) (State may negotiate away certain plea rights)